Thanks, Donald -- and my apologies for interpreting too much detail in your request. The question of whether concepts need their own GUIDs, vs. being represented by Name-GUID+Publication-GUID, as posed in your original Post on this "Topic 3", seemed to me a more specific question than the issue of what a "Name" object is or should be -- so I had calibrated my level of specificity in my response too precisely.

I understand and agree that the focus should be broader at this stage, and I will re-calibrate the level of specificity of my comments accordingly.

For example, Yde's suggestions about fundamentally different expectations among zoologists and botanists need to be addressed in the TCS group.

It was discussed among the TCS group -- at GREAT length. There seems no easy answer, other than "different solutions for different Codes", which seems to me to be the genesis of a terrible future legacy....

It all boils down to the distinction of which attributes apply to a Name object, vs. which apply to usage instances. The botanical approach stacks more attributes on the Name object, whereas the zoological approach tends to put them more on the usage instances. But as you suggest, this is something best saved for a Taxonomy GUID subgroup discussion.

In any case, thanks for your clarification of the focus.

Aloha, Rich

Richard L. Pyle, PhD Database Coordinator for Natural Sciences Department of Natural Sciences, Bishop Museum 1525 Bernice St., Honolulu, HI 96817 Ph: (808)848-4115, Fax: (808)847-8252 email: deepreef@bishopmuseum.org http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/staff/pylerichard.html